IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-08924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re New York City Policing, Judge McMahon temporarily kept an exhibit sealed and ordered defendants to justify continued secrecy.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the related New York City policing demonstration cases, as well as the public seeking access to Exhibit 13.
What happened
In re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations involved plaintiffs’ request to keep Exhibit 13 to their motion to consolidate from public view. Plaintiffs said the exhibit was confidential under an agreement between the parties, and defendants had not consented to filing it publicly.
The court ordered the unredacted exhibit to remain temporarily sealed. It gave defendants until 5 p.m. on August 12, 2022, to explain why the exhibit should remain sealed, noting that court records are generally presumed to be public. The order did not make a final decision on continued sealing.
Judge Colleen McMahon also reminded the parties that the court was not bound by their confidentiality agreement and directed the clerk to terminate the sealing motion.
The detailed version
- IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS · No. 1:20-cv-08924
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 3, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs filed a letter motion asking the court to seal Exhibit 13 to their motion to consolidate. According to the motion, the parties’ confidentiality order treated the exhibit as confidential, and defendants had declined to consent to its public filing. The court noted that it was not a party to that confidentiality order.
Ruling
The court ordered the unredacted version of Exhibit 13, filed at Docket No. 692, to remain temporarily under seal. The court gave defendants until 5 p.m. on August 12, 2022, to explain why the exhibit should remain sealed, citing the presumption that the entire court record should be publicly available and the limited exceptions to that presumption. The order did not finally resolve whether the exhibit would remain sealed. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 691.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.